The concept of “In A Violent Nature” poses an interesting question: What if a classic slasher horror took place almost exclusively from the killer’s perspective? The possibilities are fascinating, no doubt, and countless great stories could be told. However, after a relatively brief 90-minute foray into this concept, one might have second thoughts.
The plot of a slasher movie is almost inconsequential, as is the case in writer-director Chris Nash’s first feature-length venture. It’s about a supernatural killer awoken by a group of college students and on a vengeful killing spree. The premise promises plenty of gore, creative kills, and a unique perspective.
For some, the ticket is worth what they’ll pay for it. There’s some great cinematography (for the most part) and plenty of creative and gnarly murders. For others, this movie will feel like a massive slog.
Despite only clocking in at 94 minutes, the film has remarkably odd pacing. There are numerous scenes of the killer slowly skulking through the woods, which is only frightening when you have any investment in the people he’s stalking. Think of ‘Halloween.’ A major reason that movies float by so quickly is the well-crafted and relatable stories. Sure, some stupid characters get killed in that film, but the audience gets to know them. Laurie Strode, played by a young Jamie Lee Curtis, is a great protagonist because she’s relatable, level-headed, and good-hearted. We root for her, and happily.
In this movie, we get none of that. Not even the idiots are likable. I can think of maybe two or three characters who didn’t annoy me; whenever one of these annoying dummies bit the dust, I said, “Good.”
The movie also has a twisted sense of humor. Its clunky awkwardness harkens back to classic horror and highlights the absurdity of the story.
The script has to be the weakest ingredient that makes up “In A Violent Nature.” The plot is derivative and paper-thin, only serving as a vehicle to spoon-feed gore to the viewing audience. The characters are equally one-note. They’re either cartoonishly stupid, mean, or completely flat, like a La Croix that’s been left open and forgotten. It’s all in service of the kills.
When I think of really gory horror films, the one that instantly comes to mind is “The Thing.” John Carpenter’s 1982 cult classic is so entertaining because of its fantastic cast. Kurt Russell as MacReady, Keith David as Childs, Wilford Brimley as Blair, and more make up a thoroughly entertaining ensemble. The tension in a great horror movie like ‘The Thing’ comes from wanting the heroes to survive and win the day, even when facing impossible odds. The gore that interrupts and aids the tension feels well-earned and satisfying.
The tension in “In A Violent Nature” is diminished because our protagonist is the murderer. Whether we like it or not, the killer’s goal is to kill everybody. This is accentuated by the fact that his victims tend to be stupid, boring, or annoying. Therefore, I felt a distinct lack of tension, absent from other slashers.
I commend this film for its bravery in pursuing a new idea. I wish I found it less annoying, stupid, or boring. It’s a frustrating watch, but one I can still recommend.
